Tesseract

Higher-performance, cheaper propulsion systems for satellites

Tesseract

Higher-performance, cheaper propulsion systems for satellites

All satellites need propulsion to get into orbit and stay there, but the current options use toxic fuels or perform poorly – and they're all expensive. So, we invented a new system: it's twice as good and half the cost of our closest competitor.

The Rapidly-Changing Satellite Industry Needs a Better Propulsion System. So We Made One.

Satellites Are Getting Smaller and Cheaper

We’re at the dawn of a new era in satellites. Most of the 1,500 satellites currently in space are large machines that cost upwards of $300 million each. Driven by the large drop in cost to launch a satellite, companies are now launching many small, inexpensive satellites instead of a few large ones. By having a blanket of small satellites, we can send the Internet to hard-to-reach places and expand satellite-powered observation to improve our understanding of the planet we call home.

Current Propulsion Systems Are Too Expensive for Small Satellites

All satellites need propulsion, but the traditional systems, designed in the 1960s, were meant for large satellites. They rely on highly toxic fuels and require expensive materials. Just fueling the system costs $500,000, in addition to the cost of the propulsion system itself! For a large $300 million satellite, this high cost was a drop in the bucket. But for cost-sensitive small satellites, the old technology is far too expensive.

Our System Performs Twice as Well for Half the Price

For small satellites, the status quo is simply too expensive. Operators can’t afford to spend $500,000 just to fuel a satellite, not to mention the cost of the propulsion system itself. Our system solves both these problems without compromising performance.

Our propulsion technology can work for satellites of any size. We’ve identified 100kg satellites as our go-to-market opportunity because they’re a large section of the upcoming market and our customers building these satellites are searching for propulsion that better meets their needs.

Investor Q&A

Expand all

What does your company do?

All satellites need propulsion to get into orbit and stay there, but the current options use toxic fuels or perform poorly – and they're all expensive. So, we invented a new system: it's twice as good and half the cost of our closest competitor.

Where will your company be in 5 years?

We are on the cusp of a massive satellite market that will bring Internet access to every corner of the world, vastly expand our Earth-imaging capabilities, and contribute to humanity in ways we haven't even imagined yet. Simply put, our propulsion system is better and cheaper than all the other options. We have a real opportunity to be on every satellite heading to space.

What is Tesseract?

Tesseract is a space transportation company that builds maneuvering rocket propulsion systems for satellites. All satellites need propulsion but current options are expensive, toxic, and/or have poor performance. We offer a better, safe-to-handle, higher-performance propulsion option for the large number of small satellites that will soon be flying in space.

What's the propulsion system for?

The satellite’s propulsion system allows it to maneuver to its desired operational orbit after being launched and to keep itself there. Satellites get to space by riding on a launch vehicle, like Falcon 9, but can’t remain in their desired orbit without onboard propulsion to provide “stationkeeping”. Propulsion is also used to change to a different orbit. When the satellite is first launched into space, often it needs to shift to a different position on the orbital ring, or to move to a higher altitude orbit than where it’s delivered by the launch vehicle. Then, over the course of its lifetime, the satellite must use occasional propulsion to maintain that orbit. Lastly, at the end of a satellite’s life, it also needs propulsion to deorbit into the Earth’s atmosphere so that there isn’t a buildup of debris in space.

How is your system better than the old way of propelling satellites?

The engines and other subcomponents used in conventional propulsion systems were mostly developed at the beginning of the Space Age, back in the 50s and 60s, and have not been improved much since then. They also typically use hydrazine fuel. It's high performance, remains stable for years in space, and has been used in operational satellites for decades. The challenge with the chemical is that it's extremely toxic. It's worse than the chemical weapons that were used during World War I in Europe, so safely handling it drives a huge amount of fueling cost for the satellite operators down here on Earth. Imagine if you had to fuel up your car with Sarin gas, and you’ll have an idea what it’s like to fuel up a satellite today. Satellite manufacturers build the entire satellite system, and at the last minute they have to have everyone else leave the facility and spend about three days fueling the satellite with highly trained technicians in expensive hazmat suits. It's a very expensive operation, taking about a dozen people and costing as much as half a million dollars per satellite. Traditional propulsion systems also need to use very expensive materials such as platinum, resulting in a high cost just to build the hardware.
Our hardware is the alternative to that. By designing our thrusters so they can use modern low-toxicity fuels, we eliminate the high cost of fueling the satellite. In addition to lowering the handling hazards and cost, the fuel offers higher specific impulse (the spacecraft equivalent of miles per gallon) than the incumbent standard. The fuel also burns at a lower temperature, allowing for the use of cheaper materials to keep costs low.

What’s the specific innovation you’ve made to satellite propulsion?

Our innovation is in designing a new kind of satellite thruster that can use low-toxicity fuels and is optimized to be made with modern manufacturing techniques and automation, instead of conventional manual manufacturing, to drive large reductions in hardware cost.
We identified an opportunity to use a chemical system of two different liquids with a simple, passive ignition method. The chemicals used are far less toxic than traditional fuels, resulting in significantly safer and more affordable handling before launch. Our thrusters are fine-tuned to take maximum advantage of the new propellants and provide superior performance at reduced hardware cost.
The technology is extremely difficult (it is literally rocket science!). However, we’re more agile than our incumbent competitors and have the experience needed to bring these products to market quickly. Even if our largest competitor wanted to pursue similar technology, it would still take them years to get up to speed and have a product that's ready to fly in space.

Can you give a brief overview of satellites in space?

There are about 1,500 satellites in space today. Up until recently, these satellites have been manufactured by large defense contractors and government agencies, and would typically fly for 15 to 20 years before being retired. Often times those satellites would cost $300 million or more and weigh several thousand kilograms. They are very expensive and the programs to develop them could take 10 or more years for each satellite. That's changing today with small satellites. SpaceX and other launch companies have lowered the cost of launch by 40% which is allowing the space industry to grow quickly.
This cost reduction, along with Moore’s law, is resulting in an influx of smaller telecommunications satellites that are networked together into orbital constellations. This new generation of satellites weigh more like a hundred kilograms each, and are intended to be replaced every 3 to 5 years to ensure the latest technology is on-orbit. The growth of this new kind of communications satellite is driven by the growing demand for high-speed internet access across the globe. Only about 50% of the world's population is on the internet today, and the demand for broadband connectivity is growing exponentially. Fiber optics can only cover a fraction of the people who still don’t have online access, while satellites can deliver ubiquitous internet coverage to every location on Earth.
In addition to communications, another growing segment for commercial satellites is Earth observation. There is rapid growth in capability for imaging and signal monitoring satellites to feed the growing demand for data across nearly every industry on the planet. Everything from agriculture, transportation, urban planning, climate science, and more are benefiting from increased insight provided by space-based data. These satellites need propulsion, and no system currently on the market can meet the cost and performance required by these commercial endeavors.

How do you see the industry growing or evolving?

It is still the early days for the use of commercial satellites in space. There are about 1,500 satellites currently up in space, and there have been over 23,000 announced just in the last few years. Estimates are that at least 50% of those will get flown. SpaceX by itself is talking about over 7,000 satellites. OneWeb is talking about 2,700 satellites. These companies have already built factories and they're putting a lot of money into this. A large Japanese bank called SoftBank has invested $1.5 billion into the OneWeb constellation of satellites for telecommunications. It's something that's well-financed and is moving quickly towards deployment into space.

Why do companies make different sizes of satellites?

Large communications satellites are an artifact of the earlier days of aerospace, when launch was more expensive and it was beneficial to have a small number of geostationary satellites (your satellite dish could be pointed at one spot in the sky and never have to move). These satellites have to be positioned in very high orbits, and are designed to service a large number of signals over a large geographic area, for an operational life of up to 20 years to make the business case close. These factors drove designs that had to reliably survive in a harsh environment (even for space) for a long time, resulting in a snowball effect on the cost of building, launching, and operating satellites. This older model is similar to how mainframes were used during earlier days of computing.
Large satellites have been used because launch was 70% more expensive before SpaceX brought lower prices to the market. SpaceX is continuing to drive prices lower, and Blue Origin, led by Jeff Bezos of Amazon, is likely to add even more competition. Small satellites can do much of the work of large satellites of decades past because of Moore’s Law. Due to the effects of Moore’s law and significant reduction in launch costs, the industry is shifting to a different model, where fleets of small satellites are taking over. Small satellites, positioned in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), can be used in a networked configuration that allows for high bandwidth and low latency using smaller electronics. Lower cost to build and launch these satellites mean that their operational lifetime can be on the order of 3-5 years, allowing for the use of cheaper commercial electronics and compounding the cost savings. While our systems are scalable to a wide range of sizes, this class of satellite is where the largest growth is, and it’s also where our technology can make the biggest impact.

What could go wrong?

We've removed a significant portion of the technical risks. The chemistry and physics work, and now we are simply working through standard engineering design, testing, and space qualification. We may have to do some iterations on the design to get to that 99% efficiency that we and our customers are looking for. One of the challenges that we could hit is that we may have to do a bit more iteration than we're expecting, and that could drive additional costs for unforeseen hardware and testing.
Though developing rockets is always risky, it’s something we’ve done before. We’ve solved tough engineering problems, and understand how to get a system from concept to production.

What would your main competitor tell me is not good about what your company is doing?

Their concern would likely be that we haven't flown in space and haven't completed qualification testing. The space industry has historically been fairly risk-averse due to the cost of production and launch, but many of our customers are fed up with the status quo and are looking for ways to disrupt the current system. Our primary goal to address this is to build up the test equipment that will allow us to do hot-fire tests in a simulated space environment. Once we’ve demonstrated further maturity of the technology, there are opportunities with several customers to sell products that will fly in space.

Do you have to pay for your own testing?

For most testing, yes. We use our own equipment for hot-fire testing of thrusters, and contract out environmental testing (thermal, vibration, radiation, etc.) to various test service providers. Some potential customers have offered testing services at their facilities, which may become available as part of future contracts.

How does your propulsion system compare to other systems?

A figure of merit often used for spacecraft propulsion is something called Isp, or Specific Impulse. It’s a measure of efficiency for rockets, similar to MPG for cars. New low-toxicity monopropellant systems being offered by competitors have an Isp of about 206 seconds, which is a significant compromise over traditional hydrazine bi-propellant systems (approximately 300 seconds). It’s about a 33% discount in performance per pound or kilogram of fuel. Our systems have an Isp of up to 320 seconds, allowing for safer, environmentally friendly propulsion without compromising performance.
Some small satellite platforms use a method called differential drag for orbit phasing. They open up their solar panels and slowly maneuver using air resistance in the upper atmosphere. Using differential drag can take several months for newly launched satellites to reach their intended orbit, meaning a significant delay before they start producing valuable data and revenue. Since the satellite has a limited orbital lifetime, this revenue, which can easily be millions of dollars, is not just delayed but lost entirely. By adding our propulsion system, the satellites can maneuver to their desired orbit in a matter of minutes, and start generating revenue almost immediately to make the most of the satellite’s lifetime.

Do you see the company’s focus staying on propulsion systems or will that focus change as the industry evolves?

Our focus will grow to include space transportation systems on a larger scale. Once we’ve established ourselves as a propulsion system supplier, we will develop the next generation of “space tugs” and rocket stages to move materials around the solar system.
One of the big things that's allowed small satellites to come online and for large numbers of them to be flying is Moore's Law. Cheap chips and everything else that’s coming off cell phones is going into satellites and allowing them to go from a mainframe model of a few satellites flying each year to more of a cell phone model with thousands and eventually, millions of satellites. That’s going to make a big difference for the industry.
But propulsion and physics don't conform to Moore's Law. There's nothing in there that's going to benefit from that. There has been a similar system flown on satellites since the very beginning of the Space Age back in the ‘50s, and there have been very few updates. The same model numbers have been on those satellites since the 1960s. What we're doing is disrupting a market that's been the same for more than 50 years.One of the challenges is that satellites are a very conservative industry, and if you're flying a few $300 million satellites a year, then you're willing to take on the huge operational cost of fueling, and you'll choose a system that works even if it's super toxic and very expensive. But for small satellites, the status quo doesn't work. You can't spend half a million dollars just to fuel each satellite when you're flying 2,000 of them. That’s our opportunity.

You’ve mentioned a couple things that are left to do: figure out the injection system, test it in a vacuum, get it on a rocket and get it into space. Is there anything else you're focused on?

These are the primary milestones we’re pursuing to commercialize our first products, but we do have some longer-term projects we’re working on as well. In particular, we’re making development plans for larger scale propulsion systems and stages using cryogenic propellants, electric propulsion, and even nuclear power! The transportation capability we develop will help explore the solar system and enable the new in-space economy.

Who would be your next hire?

Our next hire will be another propulsion test engineer to help get us through development and qualification testing. We have several interested and highly qualified candidates that we’ve worked with before that will join as our next employees. Additional hires are needed as we scale the company because every rocket must be thoroughly tested before shipment. If we’re shipping 200 systems a year we’ll need to grow significantly.

What's the endgame for a business like yours?

Ultimately, our goal is to become the premiere space transportation company of the 21st century. As earth’s economic sphere expands further outward, there will be exponentially increasing demand for transportation of commercial and scientific spacecraft, raw materials, and even humans. To position ourselves for this future, we’re building a business to address the current limitations of in-space propulsion. Our first products will be used by companies that are launching telecommunications and Earth observation satellites, as well as exploratory missions to the Moon, Mars, and Near-Earth Asteroids.
We’ll use the revenue from our initial chemical propulsion products to fuel development in electric and nuclear systems as the demand for transportation grows. We’ll expand our product line to work with large satellites, interplanetary spacecraft, launch vehicles, and eventually, space tugs moving extremely valuable, raw materials around the solar system.

How and why did your team get into satellite propulsion?

Jake and Jeff have known each other since college, and we met several years ago at a previous job. We each have over a decade of experience in aerospace, developing complex propulsion systems for missiles, satellites, and even the Space Shuttle. We worked together for almost four years on several projects, including rocket engines for NASA, and a reusable launch program for the Department of Defense and DARPA.
We’ve all been interested in the commercialization of space for a long time, and have been quietly looking for opportunities to help the industry. The timing is right for better satellite propulsion, so we quit our jobs to build just that.

Why are you uniquely qualified to make this happen?

I have an economics degree from the University of Texas at Austin, and Master’s degree in Space Studies from International Space University. After undergrad, I started my first company, an online bookseller called Frugal Media. I ran it successfully for nine years, building it up to 50 employees, and shipping over 1.6 million items to customers. After realizing I was interested in aerospace, I sold the business and spent two and a half years building my first airplane. After completing and selling the aircraft, I obtained my Master’s in Space Studies and worked for several years developing and operating reusable rockets.
Jake and Jeff both have undergraduate degrees in Aerospace Engineering, as well as Master’s degrees in Space Systems and Aerospace Engineering. They’ve been working together on projects since undergrad, and each have over 10 years of experience in aerospace. Jake worked on propulsion and pyrotechnic systems on the Space Shuttle, before going to Aerojet Rocketdyne, the largest manufacturer of in-space propulsion systems. Jeff worked at Goodrich and UTC Aerospace, developing guidance, navigation, and control systems for missiles. More recently, they both worked for several years in Mojave building reusable rockets, which is where we met.

Financials

Tesseract has financial statements ending December 31 2017.
Our cash in hand is $515,000, as of March 2019. Over the three months prior, revenues averaged $0/month, cost of goods sold has averaged $0/month, and operational expenses have averaged $70,000/month.

At a Glance

May 15
to December 31

$90

Revenue

-$250,893

Net Loss

$0

Short Term Debt

$524,500

Raised in 2017

$515,000

Cash on Hand

Income

Balance

Narrative

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview

All satellites need propulsion to get into orbit and stay there, but the current options use toxic fuels or perform poorly – and they're all expensive. So, we invented a new system: it's twice as good and half the cost of our closest competitor.

We are on the cusp of a massive satellite market that will bring Internet access to every corner of the world, vastly expand our Earth-imaging capabilities, and contribute to humanity in ways we haven't even imagined yet. Simply put, our propulsion system is better and cheaper than all the other options. We have a real opportunity to be on every satellite heading to space.

Given the Company’s limited operating history, the Company cannot reliably estimate how much revenue it will receive in the future, if any.

Milestones

Tesseract Space, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware in May 2017.

Our company was organized in May 2017 and has limited operations upon which prospective investors may base an evaluation of its performance.

Revenues & Gross Margin. For the period ended December 31, 2018, the Company had revenues of $90 compared to the year ended December 31, 2017, when the Company had revenues of $0. Our gross margin was 100.0% in fiscal year 2018, compared to % in 2017.

Assets. As of December 31, 2018, the Company had total assets of $272,432, including $515,000 in cash. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had $0 in total assets, including $0 in cash.

Net Loss. The Company has had net losses of $250,893 and net income of $0 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.

Liabilities. The Company's liabilities totaled $0 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and $0 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

Liquidity & Capital Resources

To-date, the company has been financed with $5 in equity, $19,995 in convertibles, and $1,104,500 in SAFEs.

After the conclusion of this Offering, should we hit our minimum funding target, our projected runway is 11 months before we need to raise further capital.

We plan to use the proceeds as set forth in this Form C under "Use of Funds". We don’t have any other sources of capital in the immediate future.

We will likely require additional financing in excess of the proceeds from the Offering in order to perform operations over the lifetime of the Company. We plan to raise capital in 14 months. Except as otherwise described in this Form C, we do not have additional sources of capital other than the proceeds from the offering. Because of the complexities and uncertainties in establishing a new business strategy, it is not possible to adequately project whether the proceeds of this offering will be sufficient to enable us to implement our strategy. This complexity and uncertainty will be increased if less than the maximum amount of securities offered in this offering is sold. The Company intends to raise additional capital in the future from investors. Although capital may be available for early-stage companies, there is no guarantee that the Company will receive any investments from investors.

Runway & Short/Mid Term Expenses

Tesseract Space, Inc. cash in hand is $515,000, as of March 2019. Over the last three months, revenues have averaged $0/month, cost of goods sold has averaged $0/month, and operational expenses have averaged $70,000/month, for an average burn rate of $70,000 per month. Our intent is to be profitable in 11 months.

No material changes. We're continuing to work on the design, build, and test of thrusters and components for our first product line, while engaging in ongoing discussions with prospective customers.

We are in discussions with large satellite constellation builders and companies seeking rockets for the first commercial Lunar mission later this year. If one of these contracts is secured we will have funding of $1.5M-$5M. Expenses will increase if we raise over $750k total as we've set that milestone to hire additional employees to accelerate development and testing of our propulsion systems.

A note from Wefunder. Unlike companies on the NASDAQ, early-stage startups have little operating history. Financial analysis is not as useful when there is limited data. It's more important to predict the size of the future market. If the founder achieves their vision, will enough customers pay the company enough money?

It's also common for fast-growing startups to lose money even faster: they are investing in future growth. In these cases, it's often better to check if the Cost of User Acquisition (CAC) is lower than the Lifetime Value (LTV) of that customer. If one spends $1000 today to make $10,000 over the next five years, that may be a smart bet. Amazon is a famous example of re-investing potential profits to maximize growth over 20 years.

Risks

1

Tesseract has demonstrated hypergolic ignition but needs to work through design, manufacture, and test of our propulsion system. We have experience doing this work but engineering can take longer than expected. Our primary risk is burning through capital before completion of space qualification. Our estimate is January 2019. A green light schedule is Fall 2018 and yellow light Summer 2019. Our fundraise is to extend runway into 2019.

2

The Company may never receive a future equity financing or elect to convert the Securities upon such future financing. In addition, the Company may never undergo a liquidity event such as a sale of the Company or an IPO. If neither the conversion of the Securities nor a liquidity event occurs, the Purchasers could be left holding the Securities in perpetuity. The Securities have numerous transfer restrictions and will likely be highly illiquid, with no secondary market on which to sell them. The Securities are not equity interests, have no ownership rights, have no rights to the Company’s assets or profits and have no voting rights or ability to direct the Company or its actions.

3

Completing contracting takes longer than expected. We have a proposal we are competing for that is working toward a decision on 300 satellites with our propulsion system. It is expected that contracting will be in Q1 2019 at which point a payment of $5M would be received for non-recurring engineering out of the $50M contract award. Contracting can take time with large aerospace firms and we must have sufficient runway to reach initial payment.

4

If our competitors lower their prices below our break even for initial product build then this could be problematic. Competition from other more established companies in the industry may have more tools, capital and resources upon which to rely, which could be a threat to our growth.

5

Our future success depends on the efforts of key personnel and consultants, especially our founders, Erik, Jeff and Jacob. We heavily rely on our small management team. The loss of services of our founders or any key personnel may have an adverse effect on us. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in attracting and retaining other personnel we require to successfully grow our business.

6

It would be problematic if we don't win government grants such as NASA or DOD SBIR other solicitations. These are from $125k to $2M grants which are non-diluting. Grants would help pay for testing and qualification but funding should be available from investors or customer contracts. Despite the fact that we have previously won SBIR and Tipping Point contracts there is still no guarantee that we will win more.

7

Electric propulsion continues to take market share from chemical propulsion, including our product. Electric propulsion for huge satellites is high efficiency but for small satellites major technical challenges have been found shrinking high voltage electronics required. Electric also requires abundant solar energy to offer any performance and for the growing low Earth orbit market satellites are eclipsed 50% of the time by the Earth leading to poor performance. With the cost of launch being reduced by SpaceX, Rocket Lab, and Virgin Orbit the mass savings of electric propulsion are not worth the 1000x lower thrust available and 3-12 month transfer times, compared to hours for our system.

Details

The Board of Directors

Director

Occupation

Joined

Erik Franks

CEO @ Tesseract Space, Inc.

2017

Jeff Gibson

COO @ Tesseract Space, Inc.

2017

Jacob Teufert

CTO @ Tesseract Space, Inc.

2017

Officers

Officer

Title

Joined

Erik Franks

CEO

2017

Jeff Gibson

COO

2017

Jacob Teufert

CTO

2017

Voting Power

Holder

Securities Held

Voting Power

Jacob Teufert

3,000,000 Common Stock

31.0%

Jeff Gibson

3,000,000 Common Stock

31.0%

Erik Franks

3,000,000 Common Stock

31.0%

Past Equity Fundraises

Date

Amount

Security

10/2018

$600,000

SAFE

12/2018

$918,391

SAFE

05/2017

$19,995

Convertible Note

05/2017

$5

Priced Round

11/2017

$322,000

SAFE

12/2017

$47,500

SAFE

11/2017

$10,000

SAFE

09/2017

$10,000

SAFE

08/2017

$15,000

SAFE

06/2017

$100,000

SAFE

Convertible Notes Outstanding

Issued

Amount

Interest

Discount

Valuation Cap

Maturity

05/30/2017

$19,995

0.0%

0.0%

None

05/30/2022

Outstanding Debts

None.

Related Party Transactions

None.

Use of Funds

$50,000

95% of these funds would be sufficient to finish the vacuum chamber so that we can start the testing of our rockets in "a space like environment". Following this we can sign the official contracts. 5% Wefunder intermediary fee

$575,000

95% will allow us to complete testing and space qualification of our 1N (1/4 lb f) thrusters and associated propulsion system. We've received LOI's for 200-300 propulsion systems each year at a price of $500k each. 5% Wefunder intermediary fee

$1,070,000

95% will allow us to complete testing and space qualfication of our 1N and 450N thrusters and associated propulsion systems. We've received LOI's for hundreds of systems per year and have additional interest for more products including this 450N rocket engine. Our 450N rocket will allow access to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids with small spacecraft and there is significant demand from customers. 5% Wefunder intermediary fee

Capital Structure

Class of Security

Securities(or Amount) Authorized

Securities(or Amount) Outstanding

VotingRights

Common Stock

15,000,000

10,105,583

Yes

Form C Filing on EDGAR

The Securities and Exchange Commission hosts the official Form C on their EDGAR web site.

No Updates Yet

Here's a cartoon for your trouble.

Notes from investors

My name is Derrick Fuller, Love to be a part of you an d the venture that you all have established and launched very unique and have great potential. You can help me as far as keeping me up to date and letting me grow with you as in term of money and growth of income. Thanks A Billion.

I love that you're disrupting this industry, and since I'm an experienced editor, I can help edit your written content. (I already helped edit a mineral mining for investors textbook, which you can find online.)

Good luck guys, I'm a former Draper Avionics engineer, now supporting NASA GSFC. I'm an expert in fault-tolerant, redundancy management, reliability and safety assessments. Although, I don't think you will need help help in any of those areas.

Hi Guys, awesome visionary product! I've been using Siemens NX for 25 years and am also a Channel Partner with 'em, and have a consulting biz doing high end surface modeling in NX, stints in recent years at SpaceX and Hyperloop-One. Best of luck commercializing your venture!
-Bruce

35 years in CAD/CAM, interested in 3D design and customization technologies

Hi, I'm Joe, a self-taught hacker and a father. I've been a space enthusiast and my secret goal is to build a picosat named after my daughter and launch it. I believe that the next internet will be from above, and it is natural for me to invest in you all.

HI all,
I am a Software development engineer at Microsoft. I love coding and aircraft technology. Event though, Today is my third day in this platform, Your Idea worthy of an investment and if there is any thing I can help in my skills, let me know.
Thank you
Abereham

Greetings Team! Heard about you guys through other investments on Wefunder. Very interested in all things space related (been a Trekkie for years!!!). I view this as a great opportunity to actually support something I'm really into. P.S. my jacket size is 3X.
Dyncort (Dean) E. Richards

Greetings Erik, Jacob & Jeff!!! Thank you so much for this wonderful investing opportunity in Tesseract! I feel very fortunate and blessed to be a part of this abundant campaign 🙏😊❤️🌿
To your success,
William Richard Jeffries, V

My name is Keven mena, I’m a 10yr army veteran and still serving our nation. Me as a veteran don’t really have to much opportunity, so I’m gonna giving this investing deal a try, so I could provide to my family and my future. Thanks guys for the opportunity hope to hear from you guys soon.

not much to say about myself other than i see how everything is moving towards satellites and recently read and approval to send 7,000 + satellites in the next 6 something years. only way i can help is sending more money really

Ask a Question

Your commitment was sent

Wefunder supports three different federal laws that allow startups to raise money legally. To comply with the law, Wefunder Advisors LLC and Wefunder Portal LLC (both owned by Wefunder Inc) also list startups depending on the regulation used.

Legal May 16th 2016

Regulation Crowdfunding

Wefunder Portal LLC

$72,020,033

for 219 startups

Legal Now

Regulation D

Wefunder Advisors LLC

$29,072,241

for 97 startups

Rare

Regulation A+

Wefunder Inc

$5,784,195

for 1 startup

We are the largest funding portal for Regulation Crowdfunding.

Some fine print: 1) These numbers include startups currently live on Wefunder if they pass their minimum target. 2) Some startups use two different laws at the same time (i.e., Regulation D and Regulation Crowdfunding).

Wefunder Inc. runs wefunder.com and is the parent company of Wefunder Advisors LLC and Wefunder Portal LLC. Wefunder Advisors is an exempt reporting adviser that advises SPVs used in Reg D offerings. Wefunder Portal is a funding portal (CRD #283503) that operates sections of wefunder.com where some Reg Crowdfunding offerings are made.
Wefunder, Inc. operates sections of wefunder.com where some Reg A offerings are made. Wefunder, Inc. is not regulated as either a broker-dealer or funding portal and is not a member of FINRA.
By using wefunder.com, you accept our Terms & Privacy Policy. If investing, you accept our Investor Agreement.
You may also view our Privacy Notice.

Wefunder, Inc., Wefunder Advisors LLC, and Wefunder Portal
LLC do not review user-generated content beyond what's
required by US law. Some user-generated content, including investor
biographical information, may not be accurate.